bing_serp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds two things annotations can't: sandbox/dummy-data behavior with no payment, and a prompt-injection warning that titles/descriptions are third-party content to be treated as data. It stops short of noting rate limits or result freshness beyond 'Live'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences: return shape first, then sandbox status, then the security caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, and the most important facts are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and the fixed count of 10. Combined with the sandbox disclosure and the injection warning, an agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the output safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for keyword (max length, unsupported operators), language_code and location_code (default codes, lookup endpoint), so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Top 10 organic Bing results' with the exact returned fields (position, URL, title, description) and engine/device ('Bing', 'desktop'). It is clearly distinguishable from google_serp by engine, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the Google sibling or news_search/image_search, leaving that routing to the agent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Adds real context for choosing/trusting it: it is sandboxed and returns dummy data with no payment, so an agent knows the results are not production-real. However, it never states when to prefer google_serp, news_search or image_search over this tool, so alternatives are left implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.